Kitch

Hello all,

I am currently moving out of a 2001.5 Audi S4. It's just not the right car for me right now. I want a toy, not 4 doors and practicality. I have a perfectly good VW golf beater as primary transportation. I am currently looking into a Carrera 3.2 or a 964, coupe, not a targa or cab. I've read through a lot of these forums looking for info on the car and potential issues I may come across. However, I have a few questions.

First off the sugjestion of a PPI is excellent. Any sugjestions on where to take cars in the Raleigh-Durham area of NC?

What kind of normal wear and tear items should i excpect to be taking care of on these older cars? Suspension bushings and whatnot? Shift linkages? Is rust a major problem? Electrical gremlins common? I've not found anything specific in the forums that I have searched through, just want to double check. It seems that the 3.2 is a fairly solid motor as I have not seen any reference to major gotchas with this motor that wouldnt be uncovered in a PPI. Is it worth it to give the G50 tranny cars a lot of priority over the 915s? Or is a good condition 915 car just as worthwhile?

Finally, I am 6'2" and 230ish. I fit in the car clearly and am comfortable in it. but I was curious if anyone in my size range or bigger has issue with comfort on longer trips or helmet clearance issues?

Thanks for all your help!
Seems to be a great forum with a wealth of information.

-Jake

MIK911

If you want a TOY, get the 3.2. It's more bare-bones, hard-core, raw, loud (in a good way), low, go-kart feel, and an absolute BLAST to drive!! The 964 is more insulated, comfy.
I also have other cars (jeep,bmw e39), so i wanted a 911 that is like nothing else i own. I take out the 911 when i want to DRIVE, not run errands.

Re:G50. Check out this thread on PelicanParts.com 911 Forum:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showt...hlight=g50+915

There seems to be quite a following of 915 loyalists, many of whom feel the 915 is superior to the G50.
Personally, i would consider the smoother shifting of the G50, but certainly wouldn't pass on a clean 915 car (i didn't)

Mike
'86 coupe
check it out..............

p_carfan

Jake-

I owned an '87 3.2 Carrera for 13 years......I put 145K on her, regular scheduled maintenance no issues ever!!!

I'm also 6'2 and 230lbs. never a problem, you might want to get it corner balanced. The 3.2 s are great cars, in some ways I still miss mine. I also had an '83, personally I liked the G50 better. Just my $0.02


Good Luck

TMH

Jake,

I've got both an '87 Carrera 3.2 and an '89 C4. I have to agree with Mike's assessment of your needs - I absolutely love driving the C4 (when my wife lets me), but it is definitely more plush and heavy. For a toy, the Carrera 3.2 is the way to go! I was going to make some comments about the interior room, but I am a little taller and heavier than you are, so p_carfan's comments are more applicable than mine. The only question I still have is helmet room. I do find that the headroom in the C4 coupe is less than that in the 3.2 Targa: More thickness required in the roof for the sunroof mechanism in the Coupe. You might want to take a helmet along when you look at one car or another, just to make sure that you can sit comfortably in it with the helmet on. (And also to see the owner's face when you ask him if you can go for a test drive, and then whip out your helmet!).

Some guys in the threads have discussed early valve guide wear, I think both in the 3.2's and the 964's. Your PPI should determine if this is an issue in the cars you are looking at. Other than that, there are a whole set of potential 'issues' in the earlier 964's, but most feel that these are overblown, and have most likely already been taken care of by the previous owners. I will have to say that the 3.6 motor in the 964's is incredible, but I sure can feel the weight difference between the C4 and the 3.2 Targa. Also, I believe that the cars with the 3.6 motor will probably be more expensive to maintain and service over the long haul - they are just more complicated.

Hopefully you have checked out the FAQ pages on what you are looking at. Although not really specific to the 3.2's, the general 911 FAQs can be found at https://rennlist.com/FAQ/index.htm, and FAQs specific to the 964s can be found at http://members.rennlist.com/jfk964/porsche_964_faq.htm
Plus check out John's Porsche 964 web at http://www.porsche964.co.uk/

Good luck,
Tom

[EDIT] One thing I forgot: My personal preference would be to go with the MY '87 or later cars for the G50 transmission and the hydraulic clutch. My opinion only, as I have also read the threads where some guys 'prefer' the 915 tranny's. I'm just not one of them: I like the feel and the smoothness of the G50/Hydraulic set-up over that of the 915/Mechanical, even when the 915 is in good shape.

T

Jim @ EuroWerks

Jake,Ive worked on these cars since 85(i was 19) They are great!The G50 is well worth the money.Remember you will be servicing the a/c every year,stay on top of maint. an occasional electrical repair(it is german).And drive the wheels off!!!!

Kitch

Wow! Thanks for the enthusiastic welcome to the boards as well as some great information.

I'll definately read a bit more about the G50 vs 915 debate. My biggest concern with the hydraulic clutch is longevity, but im sure that I can find plenty of info on that here in the boards. This seems to be an AMAZING wealth of knowledge.

I currently have a 1986 VW GTi that I use as a beater for around town. Thus I am very familiar with german "engineering". Are the 3.2s motronic engine management? I have a good bit of familiarity with this as well as CIS and CIS-e from all of my VW experience. I look forward to doing some maintenance, tinkering, and tweaking on an air cooled motor. It sounds like with a good PPI I can be at least somewhat sure of the fact there wont be any catastrophic maintenance and repairs needed in the near future at least.

I'm looking forward to the hunt.

-Jake

Teutonics

I'm 6'2", and I did NOT fit in my sunroof coupe with a helmet. I have read/heard from a several sources that the seat mounts on the '85's were higher than other years, so that may have been part of the problem. However, I had the seat mounts cut out, shortened a full inch (as far down as possible without interfering with DME box), and re-welded, which BARELY allows me to fit with a helmet. YMMV.

If I had to do it over with what I know about the cars now, I would try to find a g50 car. Just my $.02.

g-50cab

Go with the G-50 - drive both - but to me there was no comparison. Look into a Targa - you have the advantage of more head room with a helmet - can still DE without a rollbar and get to feel the wind in your hair on sunny days too.


1987 G-50 Cabriolet

Jay H

Kitch:

The 3.2 Carrera's used Bosch Motronic 2 DME (Digital Motor Electronics) engine management with LE-Jetronic fuel injection.

You asked about normal wear and tear items. These are the same things you would find in other makes of cars. Brakes, tires, clutch, suspension bushings, ball joints/tie rod ends, heat exchangers rusting through, seat bolsters, etc. There are also age related problems that can crop up due to most of these cars being 10 to 19 years old by now. Anything rubber can deteriorate from just age as well as engine seals drying out from cars that stand too much, etc.

Porsche was building some very robust cars in the '80's and '90's. These things are screwed together very well. But, buy a dog for cheap and you'll spend more that what you could have bought a mint car for on replacement parts and getting a neglected car's maintenance up to date.

I've seen several 3.2 Carrera's that have been subjected to winter driving and salt exposure for years. I owned an '86 that had been subjected to salt for many winters. They definitely hold up a bit better than most domestic makes. But, they are not immune from rust. My '86 was starting to rust through from the inside out even though I didn't even drive the car in the rain during my ownership. Rust never sleeps and that salt is hell on a car. It gets everywhere. A thorough check of the condition of the body should be done by a competent technician if you suspect any car you are looking at has been subjected to winter driving in the snow belt. 964's seem to be pretty solid in this department, but do corrode too.

Best of luck,

Jay
90 964

Kitch

Thanks again guys. All this info is very helpful.

I've been looking around a bit and have seen a number of cars available in a variety of conditions and a variety of prices. The general opinion that I have seen is that these cars can definately last if properly cared for. In general is it best to avoid higher millage (say 100k+ miles) cars? Or is it sheerly a matter of proper maintenance throughout the cars life to avoid major work?

I'm fully aware that these are older cars, and that there is always a good chance for serious problems. But obviously im more interested in general maintenance, basic repairs, and driving the car. So while im prepared for the worst, i want to put myself in a positon to avoid it.

Again, I can't thank everyone enough for their knowledge and advice.

-Jake

Sonic dB

I love my 86 3.2. Its my daily driver and working in outside sales, I put a ton of daily miles on it. Runs like a top and handles great. It is not plush at all...but you feel like you are in total control of the car when driving...its definitely a drivers-car as it is very responsive. I actually love the feel of the 915 tranny. It takes a bit more effort to shift, but the cable clutch just feels so great and responsive.

Christian K

I used to own a 1984 Carrera 3.2, which I sold this summer and I bought a 1990 964 C2 about two months ago. Can't really say which car I prefer. Both have their pros and cons.

The 964 is a lot heavier and it reacts more like a "normal" car suspensionwise, but much stiffer of course. My 3.2 did have the bilstein sport suspension so it was slightly stiffer than my 964, but the feel of the suspension was a bit more go cart-like.

The 915 is an early 70's design, so clearly the G-50 in the 964 is much better to operate. Don't know about the G-50 in the later 3.2:s, but it is obviosly a better gearbox than the 915, but how much is it worth extra?

The 964 is faster and a lot faster in higher speeds. Pushing it to 150 mph is totally effortless. Pushing the 3.2 to 150 mph took some more work. The 964 have a lot more torque at lower revs and pulls more evenly through the register. The 3.2 was more like the classic high revving race engines which really should be kept over 4000 rpms, it also had a gorgous mid range bite which I miss in the 3.6. The 3.6 is more refined, however not lame. Actually it also is a peaky engine (max power 6200 rpm) but it can be driven rapidly at lower revs as well due to the extra tourqe. It is quite below 3000 rpms, you start to really notice it at 4000 and above 5000 it has a wonderful scream, on par with the 3.2, I think. The 3.2 is proven as one of the most reliable engines to ever leave Zuffenhausen. The 89-91 964:s have a reputration for unreliability for a few reasons: 1 a weak dual mass flywheel, 2. Oil leaks. A third problem was bad ventialtion for the distributor belt wich could brake and sometimes cause serious problems. The last one is almost always cured by a vent-kit installed afterwards. If the car has medium to high milage, the flywheel is also usually taken care of, either because it has failed or when the clutch has been replaced. Oil leaks tend to be a very blown up problem. However the bad rep. of the early 964:s means that you can get one for very decent money (I did). Just be careful and let somebody who knows these cars have a look at it before you buy. Paperwork, servicebook etc. is important so you can track down what has been done to the car.

good luck

Christian

1990 C2
ex 1984 Carrera

delhi

I test drove an 85 Targa a few weeks back. It's a 915 box. Boy it was a challenge driving that thing. Mind you I'm coming from japanese cars. It reminded me of my dad's many many many air-cooled VW beetles. My wife rolled her eyes seeing me struggling with the car. (she said "don't by that thing!") Good thing I never stalled it. Mind you I was driving with a pair of oversize sandals. With snug fitting shoes, it should be ok. I find g50s are definitely easier to work with. Still heavier than japanese cars. slightly heavier than bmws too. But it's good.
However with the 915 box, you can be sure to have a good laugh each time you let a friend/relative test drive it. seeing sweat coming out of their foreheads as they try to get up a hill is priceless! LOL!

Kitch

At this point I really need to drive one to determine if it is the right car for me. I'm obviously enamoured with the car as a whole, I've dreamed of a 911 since I was 12. I think I can find the right car as I can be patient and have transportation. Repairs and maintenance are things i am prepared to deal with.

I just need to drive one. The issue here is that the S4 is the devil. The motor in that car is unreal. 400 ft lbs of tq is just a ton and that feeling cannot be replicated. So im prepared for something that isnt lightning quick, but i need something that when I want to accelerate from say 35-60 or 60-85 isnt gonna take all day. I'm not that concerned with blinding acceleration above 100. I do plan to track the car but it doesnt need to be a bullet up top. Primary concern is day to day enjoyment. So.... Anyone in the Raleigh area want to get me a few minutes of seat time so I can determine if I'm on the right path?

-Jake

Jay H

Definitely get some seat time in both a 3.2 and a 964. The 3.2, as mentioned prior, is much more raw, but less powerful.

The 964 will be more refined and is definitely faster. The 964 will be closer to the S4 than the 3.2, though as you say, 400 ft lbs is not easily duplicated. Older 911's don't get close to that unless you get into the 964 based Turbo's.

Regarding mileage, 100,000 miles is not that many miles if the car was well maintained. I'd rather have a 100,000 mile car that was very well cared for than a 50,000 mile car that was beat. Condition is everything on these cars. Of course a well maintained 50,000 mile car might be more preferable than a well maintained 100,000 mile car...

I remember driving a 911 with 220,000 miles on it (1986 model) that felt just as good as my '86 with 91,000 miles on it (at that time). Granted, the 220,000 mile 911 had a rebuilt tranny and some motor work done to it (new top end), but the rest of the car felt tight and solid.

Best of luck,
Jay
90 964